Volume 335 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 335 of the United States Reports:

United States v. Congress of Industrial Organizations, 335 U.S. 106 (1948), is a US labor law decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that a labor union's publication of a statement that advocated for its members to vote for a certain candidate for Congress did not violate the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, as amended by the 1947 Labor Management Relations Act.

Lüdecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948), was a 1948 United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Alien Enemies Act precluded judicial review of executive orders to remove foreign nationals from the United States during wartime. The case began in 1946, when the Attorney General invoked the Alien Enemies Act to issue an order for the removal of German national and outspoken Nazi Kurt Lüdecke. Though by that time the hostilities of World War II had ended and the Germans had surrendered, the Court nevertheless held the state of "declared war" needed for the Alien Enemy Act to be invoked still existed, and so the government was permitted to enforce its order to remove Lüdecke.

Ahrens v. Clark, 335 U.S. 188 (1948), was a United States Supreme Court case that denied a federal district court jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus if the person detained is not within the territorial jurisdiction of the court when the petition is filed. The 6–3 ruling was handed down on June 21, 1948, with the majority opinion written by Justice William O. Douglas and the dissent written by Justice Wiley Blount Rutledge.

by the court the fair cash or market value of land taken in eminent domain is defined as follows: “ 'By fair market value is meant the amount of money which a purchaser willing but not obliged to buy the property would pay to an owner willing but not obliged to sell it, taking into consideration all uses to which the land was adapted and might in reason be applied.’ “With reference to the question of adaptability or availability for a particular use as ah element in…

Held: that since the forced entry into the building was through the landlady’s window, in a room in which the defendant as a tenant had no rights, no objection to this mode of entry or to the search that followed was available to him. Doubtless a tenant’s quarters in a rooming or apartment house are legally as well as practically exposed to lawful approach by a good many persons without his consent or control.

Goesaert v. Cleary, 335 U.S. 464 (1948), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a Michigan law, which prohibited women from being licensed as a bartender in all cities having a population of 50,000 or more unless their father or husband owned the establishment. Valentine Goesaert, the plaintiff in the case, challenged the law on the ground that it infringed on the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Speaking for the majority, Justice Felix Frankfurter affirmed the judgment of the Detroit district court and upheld the constitutionality of the state law. The state argued that since the profession of bartending could potentially lead to moral and social problems for women, it was within the state's power to bar them from working as bartenders.

Lincoln Federal Labor Union 19129 v. Northwestern Iron & Metal Co., 335 U.S., 525 (1949), consolidated with Whitaker v. North Carolina, is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that state right-to-work laws that prohibit union security agreements (like closed shops) do not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

AFL v. American Sash & Door Co., 335 U.S. 538 (1949), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a state may create an employment right for its citizens that prevents their being denied employment because they are not members of a union.

Held: can be taken away and in its wake may follow the most cruel penalty of banishment. No such procedures could strip a natural-born citizen of his birthright or lay him open to such a penalty. I have stated heretofore the reasons why I think the Constitution does not countenance either that deprivation or the ensuing liability to such a punishment for naturalized citizens.